We in the media are dead to Bob Weir et al, had no chance with Chance the Rapper, were not allowed to be part of Queen's court, and Bono and the Edge still aren't giving the interview that we're looking for.

The result is a growing disconnect between artists and their fans that in my mind is tantamount to a disregard for the people who have made them rich and famous.

It's not that I think all those folks should talk to Chuck Yarborough because he's me. Sure, I admit I find it cool to talk to Mick Jagger or Ringo Starr or Natalie Merchant or Dierks Bentley or Grand Funk's Don Brewer or Kenny Chesney. I was a music fan before I was a music critic, and have been one a lot longer than I've been a writer.

But when I interview these folks, I'm not me; believe it or not, I'm you, just as the late Jane Scott was you back in the day.

Yeah, the questions were Jane's and mine, but just as she did with the Beatles, the Kinks, Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie and the rest back in the day, I'm talking to all these people to find out just what makes them who they are and why anyone should spend hundreds of dollars for tickets and parking to go see them live.

And that's the other issue. U2 is coming to town on July 1, playing the Browns FirstEnergy Stadium to celebrate the 30th anniversary of "The Joshua Tree'' album. Figure 50,000 people will be there, and paid anywhere from $125 to $1,200 - plus fees - to see 'em.

Seems to me that Bono, who cares so much about the rest of the world, OWES those 50,000 a 15-minute phone call as a way of saying thanks. Now, he can't call every one of those 50,000, but he can darn sure call one reporter who CAN pass along his thanks to them by way of a simple concert preview.

Billy Joel has just about reached legacy act status. He's no longer the superstar he was when he opened what's now Quicken Loans Arena a couple of decades ago. His base remains loyal - we music fans are like that - so he's going to sell pretty well when he is at Progressive Field on July 14. And yet the guy who "had to be a big shot, didn't ya" won't talk to you, through me.

He and everybody else I mentioned will take your money for tickets, $40 T-shirts and such, but they won't take time even to do a one-off conference call with 50 reporters from cities in their tour itineraries.

I understand that just because I ask for an interview doesn't mean I'm going to get one. I have really close friends in the artist world, and I know that to a person, they almost all HATE doing tour press. But every job has its down side - even being a superstar musician.

There's another aspect of this disconnect that rankles me, too. It seems more and more today, promoters and publicists and the ubiquitous "management'' (cited, blamed but never named) are doing everything they can to make covering music more difficult because many have taken on an adversarial attitude when it comes to the media.

The best example may be concert photography.

Cleveland photographer Janet Macoska has taken some of the most iconic concert photos in music history. Her image of David Bowie as the thin young duke was so good that even he bought a print to hang in one of his homes. Her photo of Bruce Springsteen alongside Little Steven and Clarence Clemons captured the essence of a Boss concert.

You will not see pictures like that anymore. Ever.

"When I started shooting in 1974, everyone could bring a professional camera, if they had one, and shoot away for the entire show if they wished,'' Macoska said. Her press credentials put her in front of the stage - and sometimes ON the stage - for an entire show.

"The photos of mine that are most iconic, like Bowie, Springsteen, DEVO and others, were film shots where I was allowed to be up close to document the energy and drama and poses that make up the visual story of rock 'n' roll,'' she said.

Back then, a photographer needed only a 50mm "normal'' lens, or - gasp! - a 135mm telephoto to be right there to capture the magical moments that usually come closer to the end of a concert.

Today, photographers are moved to the soundboard - hundreds of feet away from the stage. The distance requires lenses closer to 500mm, which can cost as much as $8,000 or more. Add to that limiting the shooter to the first one or two songs, and the issue of a thousand fans standing in between the photographer and the artist and you see the problem.

"It's important that journalists or photojournalists be allowed access,'' said my colleague, Plain Dealer photographer Marvin Fong. "We are trained to go out and be witnesses to interpret scenes and seek the truth, whether by words or photos.''

Newspapers, including The Plain Dealer, have strict policies against doctoring images - photoshopping, in today's parlance. Doing so is a firing offense here and at any reputable media outlet. The scores of fans in the pit with their tablets and phones don't have those kinds of professional standards. So if the artists are really concerned about "up the nose'' pictures - as many express - they should ban THOSE devices. If they can.

"I sympathize with older, established artists who may not want up-close shots of their visibly older faces preserved in perpetuity on the internet,'' said Cleveland freelance photographer Pete Roche.

"It doesn't do my reputation any good to run unflattering shots of an artist,'' Roche said. "Even if I don't care for Justin Bieber's music, I wouldn't run anything but pictures that make him look his best.

"Folks at home don't realize that for every shot I run in a gallery, I've deleted five to seven other shots,'' he said. "That's the first phase of the editing process.''

"Some of my best shots have been when I was within 'whispering distance' from an artist,'' said photographer Brian Lumley.

"I shot Brad Paisley a few years ago at an outdoor festival,'' he said. "It was scorching hot and he shook his head and I got doused with sweat. Was it gross? You bet. But I got some killer close-up shots.''

"The shooting restrictions, inane rules, shorter shooting times and attempts by artists and their handlers to gain control of photos for no compensation only gets worse with time,'' said Joe Kleon, who has freelanced for The Plain Dealer and Scene.

"This is a result of more and more publicists, lawyers and outsiders getting involved and being able to make such decisions,'' Kleon said. "I have learned that many performers have no idea about the photography restrictions that are put in place by 'their team.' ''

Kleon's last point may be the most problematic.

I, too, have found that most times, it's not the artist refusing to do interviews or allow a photographer up front access. It is someone usually drunk with reflected power.

Publicists have always tried to manage their clients' images. It's part of the gig, and I don't envy them the task. Just because you can sing or write songs or play a great guitar doesn't mean you're a good person. If the publicist wants to stay on the gravy train of someone like Taylor Swift, who averages about $3 million per concert, you'd better do your best to present her in the best light possible.

More now, though, it's promoters who want to impede the media, and that doesn't make any sense to me.

A Houston Chronicle story found that Live Nation - which, by the way, books all the Blossom Music Center shows and the majority of concerts at the House of Blues, Hard Rock Rocksino and The Q and is the force behind the U2 show as well as the July Progressive Field shows by Joel and Luke Bryan - made nearly $4 billion in 2012.

With that kind of moolah at stake, Live Nation, AEG and other major bookers have a vested interest in actually PROMOTING their shows . . . not by catering to the press, but in making it easier for us to do our jobs.